Lupin the Third
Member
Keep writin' those dreams
7.9/10
Keep writin' those dreams
7.9/10
[Clark Gable];34503983 said:Depends on what I am getting.
250 makes no sense. They'd be selling at a loss and Nintendo is way to stubborn to do that as a first resort.
Seeing the Gatchaman pic made me realize how Capcom wasted the license.
...
TvC2 for Wii2/next gen consoles?
The took a loss on GC right from the start. Granted it was small, but it was still there. People need to stop looking at one fucking generation for what companies will or won't do. This generation was an exception in ways for pretty much everyone. People really need to stop using this generation as a basis for what companies are going to do next gen.
*Edit*
I'm not saying 250 is a possibility, cause it's not. I'm just saying Nintendo is willing to, and has taken a lose on hardware. They just try to minimize that and not take 300+ dollar loses on systems. Which is the smart way to go about things.
Would love to have it for 3DS. (Wii U would be nice also.)
All 3 consoles are going to be a lot closer in power than people think next generation. It's going to be PS2-GC-Xbox style power level differences all over again.
This would be fantastic.
Wii launch price: $250
360 launch price: $299, $399
PS3 launch price: $499, $599
Wii won this gen with that strategy. I'd like a $400, powerful Nintendo console too, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.
Plus the bad start 3DS had at $249.99
If the console is above $299 I would expect shitloads of software.
Right, definitely a pack-in at $349. That would be ok with me, but it will be interesting...
What are the chances we know the following at E3:
- pricing
- launch date
I would not be surprised if we know neither.
When did they announce for the Wii? If I recall, the 3DS price/(and release?) was revealed on January last year.For the wii and 3ds they didn't tell us so chances are low.
Right, definitely a pack-in at $349. That would be ok with me, but it will be interesting...
What are the chances we know the following at E3:
- pricing
- launch date
I would not be surprised if we know neither.
So you're open to paying more for the next Playstation/ Xbox, why are you not open to paying more for the Wii U? Is it the controller, the Nintendo IP's that you're not too interested in? Is it that it most likely won't be as powerful as the competitors? I'm just curious.
When did they announce for the Wii? If I recall, the 3DS price/(and release?) was revealed on January last year.
EDIT: I wouldn't be surprised if the price is $329. Something different![]()
Ironically your example was from one generation. Not that the information is easily accessible but I'd like to know what other console Nintendo has taken a loss on from the get-go besides the GameCube.
You are correct it was an example from one generation, and I wish I could site hard evidence for other gens, though I can not. Though I would imagine they took a lose on the N64. The MIPS chips that its CPU, and co-processor were based on, were crazy expensive. Granted these were really toned down and such chips, I would think they would still be pretty expensive. I would not be surprised to hear they took a lose on each N64 sold.
I would not be surprised if we know neither.
When did they announce for the Wii?
[Clark Gable];34504844 said:Being burned three times in a row by Nintendo. 3DS was the final straw.
Wii's problem wasn't that it was $250, it was that they explicitly edited a GameCube rather than making something more up-to-date.ClovingSteam said:$250? So you're pretty much asking for another Wii situation where it flounders and will not hold up to the competition in a few years, thereby making sure that it doesn't receive straight quality ports from the next Playstation/Xbox. Ok, have fun with that.
$50 more than the price the market found unreasonable for the 3DS, yes. $130 more than the price most people bought it at.ClovingSteam said:If it is $299, it will have been $50 more than the 3DS at launch.
[Clark Gable];34504844 said:Being burned three times in a row by Nintendo. 3DS was the final straw.
Wii launch price: $250
360 launch price: $299, $399
PS3 launch price: $499, $599
Unacceptable with who?Because it will convey that it will not hold up graphically in comparison to the competition. I'm not asking for a $599 console but $300 in this day in age is unacceptable. It will be $50 more than the Vita Wifi and 3DS.
How exactly were you burned by the 3DS? Besides the price drop (which is a Nintendo first this early in the gen) the 3DS has had a decent-good lineup compared to most first years and 2012 looks to have a crazy amount of good first/third party support.
Unacceptable with who?
Did Sony ever start making a profit on PS3s sold? Because I can't imagine they want to go down that road again.
Wii launch price: $250
360 launch price: $299, $399
PS3 launch price: $499, $599
Wii won this gen with that strategy. I'd like a $400, powerful Nintendo console too, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.
If the trend continues, then we could probably expect a similar scenario for the Wii U.September 14th, 2006 (Japan) / September 15th, 2006 (NA)
The 3DS actually had plenty of bundled software. Really, the price was not really the reason the system flopped. Notice that even when Nintendo dropped the price, sales didn't immediately take off - that didn't happen until Nintendo released Mario 3D and Mario Kart. Had the system launched with first-party killer-apps, I think $250 would have been a fine starting price, with a $30 to $50 pricedrop right before the Vita release.Plus the bad start 3DS had at $249.99
If the console is above $299 I would expect shitloads of software.
Wii's problem wasn't that it was $250, it was that they explicitly edited a GameCube rather than making something more up-to-date.
$50 more than the price the market found unreasonable for the 3DS, yes. $130 more than the price most people bought it at.
Do you really think Sony or Microsoft can sell an additional 30 million consoles this generation, to tie the Wii?Wii won this gen? Gen is over? I think Wii bowing out earlier means it won a big portion only.
Lherre told us the cache is split asymmetrically among the cores. I've also seen multiple mentions that the amount is 3MB of L2 cache, unless that was one of the areas that passed it's original target. My guess was that it was split 1.5MB/768KB/768KB. But that could also be 2MB/512KB/512KB, or 2.5MB/256KB/256KB. And considering that they would want to keep the die size down it would most likely be the same eDRAM used in POWER7 and the PowerPC A2. And the other eDRAM amount has been said to be 32MB by a few people (probably shared, but not L3), unless that too went up from the original target.
I agree that I think the SPU range is higher than that though. And I see the eDRAM being used because that would indicate the BW for the main memory isn't big enough on its own to achieve the resolutions Nintendo claims which most likely points to a 96-bit bus to reduce the design complexity.
The 3DS actually had plenty of bundled software. Really, the price was not really the reason the system flopped. Notice that even when Nintendo dropped the price, sales didn't immediately take off - that didn't happen until Nintendo released Mario 3D and Mario Kart. Had the system launched with first-party killer-apps, I think $250 would have been a fine starting price, with a $30 to $50 pricedrop right before the Vita release.
I agree. It would also be very un-wise to have a 3DS-like price drop, because consoles are different. Everyone would criticize it and deem it a failure.And if they bring a console onto the market that is $250, it wouldn't be that much better than what is currently available which would be suicide when in a few years the Wii U wouldn't be able to handle the types of games released and built for the next Xbox/Playstation. If people don't want to pay $300+ , they don't have too. They can wait for it to drop in price. Nintendo wants the third party support, they want to make sure the system is relevant more than just a few years in terms of software being sold. The only way to accomplish this is to make sure its competitive with their competitors so they are able to receive the big third party quality titles they lacked this generation.
Who else is getting Wii-U at launch?
The 64 is probably the only system that would not surprise me if they had taken a hit. Such a beast of a console held back by cartridges ={.
Wii won this gen? Gen is over? I think Wii bowing out earlier means it won a big portion only.
Do you really think Sony or Microsoft can sell an additional 30 million consoles this generation, to tie the Wii?
Prediction time:
3 core oooe PowerPC with 2 way SMT and 3MB L2 cache. (~3ghz).
1.5GB of GDDR5 on a 96 bit bus (128MB-256MB dedicated to OS and background tasks).
Custom VLIW5 based AMD GPU with 32MB eDRAM (~400-640 SPs).
This sounds really horrible. Why keeping the bus width so low ?
I would like to throw my Miis for Bulborbs to eat! I wonder what the animation would be like.P.S. Hey Nintendo if you even think of putting a Mii feature in my Pikmin 3 I will boycott U for the next 10 years![]()
Back to pricing, eh? Man, this thread is just going in circles.
The one thing that we know for sure about the CPU (other than it being an IBM multicore Power architecture chip) is that it uses eDRAM as part of the cache. Looking at the Power7, which is the chip IBM designed their eDRAM cache for, there's 32MB of eDRAM L3 cache shared amongst all 8 cores, each of which has lower-latency access to a 4MB section of it. There's then a 256kB L2 SRAM cache for each core as well. The reason they include the L2 SRAM cache is that the latency on that SRAM is 8 clock cycles, whereas the minimum latency on the eDRAM is 25 clock cycles (which would be reduced a bit if it were used as L2, but would still be much too high).
eDRAM is cheap and dense, but it's not going to be able to achieve the latency required for use as an L2 cache, so the L2 caches are going to be SRAM. Therefore, there is going to be some eDRAM L3 cache.
I don't know where the mentions of 3MB of L2 cache come from, but it strikes me as excessive if there's also L3 cache on there, and a bit on the low side if you're talking about L2+L3. Asymmetrical L2 cache is possible, perhaps along the lines of 256kB/128kB/128kB. The L3 cache, assuming it's shared, could be asymmetrical in a topological sense, in that if, for example, there's 8MB of L3 cache, the main core has low-latency access to 4MB of it, and each of the other cores 2MB.
I would also imagine that the 32MB eDRAM rumour would be referring to the GPU's framebuffer. There's no way a console CPU would need that much L3 cache.
On the matter of recent changes to the hardware, I very much doubt CPU cache is one of them. If there is a shared L3 cache (and I see no reason for it not to be shared), then the chip is physically designed around it to make sure each core has low-latency access. By increasing the cache you basically have to start from scratch to accommodate the larger physical area it would take up. Clock speeds may change, but I don't see anything happening to the cache.
Back to pricing, eh? Man, this thread is just going in circles.
I really hope we will get something from the conference on thursday. I have no hope on new info, but this thread really needs it.